Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Technically it isn't about me since I don't care. It's about the fight for freedoms. A religiously based company or an individual who is religious has no choice. They have to recognize it.
Why does that business have to give spousal benefits to something they disagree with? It's about property rights.
The SCOTUS just said otherwise, and they are the ultimate authority on the issue.
No they didn't say it's a specific right. It was decided by equal protection. Since government has gotten involved in the marriage business they had no choice. I'm surprised the vote wasn't unanimous.
You say you went to a "religious school" for 12 years (I'm assuming you meant "Christian"). Obviously, you learned nothing about the Bible's teachings, on sin, homosexuality, or marriage. Marriage carries with it some important symbolism, as well as the fact that marriage was created by God for a man and a woman. "The two shall become one flesh," we are told.
There is absolutely NO WAY, that God would bless such an unholy union as two individuals of the same sex in a mock "wedding" that lifts a middle finger to what God has created. Indeed, such an unholy event that mocks Him, and the sacred union of man and woman, must anger God.
Marriage represents the relationship between Christ and the church. Believers are the "bride of Christ." The groom symbolizes Christ, and his bride symbolizes the Church.
How can two people of the same sex, LIVING IN SIN (not being simply "sinners," but living "in" sin), possibly be symbolic of this relationship? They can't. This is why it is so offensive to Christians, and should never have been allowed to come to pass in a nation that once honored and revered God; a nation which our Founders called "a city on a hill," a term also found in scripture.
Ok I get why it is considered a sin. (And yes, Christian school, I can quote the Bible with the best of them )
But my point is, the Bible is clear that many, many things are sins. The question I asked in not WHY homosexual relationships are considered sinful, but why there is SO MUCH FOCUS on that one sin when so many others go virtually unmentioned. Gossip, gluttony, divorce, money-lending, love of self/wealth. Why are people who commit those sins still welcome in churches, and those who love people of their own sex, not?
Hey I'm not the one telling people they are born wicked and sinful and they must repent
I'm not telling people their going to hell for whatever reason I deem
I'm not making certain sexes and people of gender orientation second class citizens
THere is no comparison there. All progress comes from a rational, well thought out and argued discussion...not out of a superstitious book that has nice poetic quotes
You are the one telling people their beliefs and bible is fictitious.
It is exactly the same thing - you are as intolerant as they are.
The question here is not whether or not the employee can lose their job. Obviously they can.
The question is whether or not they can be charged with a crime, which they could (and even imprisoned) in most states. That creates an interesting constitutional conflict if they are being imprisoned essentially for their religious beliefs.
Again, you don't have a right to force your beliefs on other people. Gays can get married, but they don't have a right to force others to accept that marriage.
Whether you, I, or anyone else accept Gay marriage isn't the point, the equality under the law is the point.
And that's the rub. I do not have religion but I can see why a religious group/company wouldn't want to perform the actual marriage or accept that marriage when it comes to spousal benefits.
Granted that company would be fishing from a smaller pond when it comes to getting the best employees and more than likely hurt themselves in the long run. But that's their choice. Their fight should not have been about denying two people in love from getting married, which is repulsive. Instead the focus should have been on the use of force in making others accept that marriage. But since government has gotten involved we are stuck.
Well intentioned? Sure, but the loss of freedoms for the individual should never be tolerated.
Take a peek at worldwide media in light of Friday's decision. "Love is for All " or some such is the message over much of the Western world.
Obama came into office in part by an electorate that was "tired" of the arrogant and often seen as narrow minded, petty and intolerant policies of GWBII and Republicans. America was seen as a backwards and bigoted place.
Am no fan of the man but you cannot deny by the time he leaves office next year Obama has transformed the United States in particular in relation to gay "equality". People can (and do) call him all sorts of nasty names but that will not take away from what he has done or happened. I'll say it again; the entire SCOTUS could die tomorrow and you can have a totally new Congress/Senate and POTUS in 2016, that won't change one thing.
You really have to give gays credit; they have achieved more in eleven years from a African-American president than Blacks have in > fifty from White holders of that office. Moreover gays have largely won the media and large segments of the population over to their side. Notice how fast anyone in the public sphere has had to back track when they make an off color remark about gays. Again Indiana was forced by largely out of state forces to change its laws out of concern it would harm gays.
I'll say it again, they have won; it is time to move on folks, nothing to see here.
This needs to be said for hopefully the last time; *No one is forcing any religion to conduct gay marriages* period, end of story.
Fine, as far as you go, but there's more to the story.
What we'll see is government doing to religious institutions what they do to each other: punishment through financial or other methods for Not doing certain things. imo, we'll see institutions whose clergy don't perform ssm threatened with loss of tax exemptions, aid for their schools. Clergy who don't perform ssm will be stripped of their ability to perform civil marriages.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
That only says that you can not be fired for being a Christian or other religion, it says nothing about being fired for not doing your job.
If a Christian applies for and get a job at a bar, but refuses to serve alcohol, they are not going to be fired for their religion, but because they refuse to do their job.
But what happens if the Christian ALREADY holds that job? Or... if it is someone of the Muslim faith who holds that job? Now... the paradigm has changed all together hasn't it...... They did their job well up until a couple of days ago. Do you still fire them? Or are they expected to forego their belief's just to satisfy someone else's? This is the problem with this whole decision to me. Not the act of same sex marriage itself, but the mere fact that one person's belief's are being put above another's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
